Christmas comes in a mere three weeks, and you know what that means–living Christmas trees, hand bell choirs and old men in Christmas sweaters! It also means that a lot of people are working on Christmas designs and creating Christmas collateral. Here’s a bit of what’s been coming through the Church Marketing Lab.
Here is an invitation to Carols by Candlelight if you can make it to Ireland.
Constructing Christmas is a series about why Christmas happened. With a design.
This graphic is for Evolution, a junior high school student series.
Christmas evenings need bulletins inserts of course, and here is one in progress.
seanPdesign
December 9, 2008
I wish peer review, reviewed work we can be inspired by and learn from. All, save one, of these designs are fairly lack luster. Excellence breads excellence. What ever happened to the days when we acknowledged good and great work instead of trying to make people feel better about themselves.
People will feel better about themselves when they are rewarded or acknowledged for doing actual good work, not mediocre work.
There is a slew of amazing, beautiful, and good design in the lab, yet its passed up week by week. Put politics and fairness aside and lets see the really good stuff!
Kevin D. Hendricks
December 10, 2008
What are you talking about Sean? This isn’t show off the best of the lab time. This isn’t a way to hail the best designers out there. This is just an attempt to show some sample work from the lab, whether it’s amazing, good, decent or not-so-great. It has nothing to do with “politics” or “fairness”.
If you think it needs help, then go visit the Lab and offer these folks some constructive comments. Whining about how it’s not excellent doesn’t help anyone.
seanPdesign
December 10, 2008
Umm. . . no one is whining. I am merely making an observation and commenting on it. In ministry we sometimes do get caught up in politics and being fair. I thought maybe “peer review” had fallen victim to focusing on fairness rather than excellence, or in CMS terms “not sucking”
I was not under the impression that churchmarketingsucks.com was about making church marketing suck *less* by showcasing mediocrity. In my humble opinion, we’re setting the bar too low. Great design work should be showcased in an effort to inspire others to greatness, and show that you actually can do great work without being lame. Maybe I misunderstood the point of it, and if so I apologize. It is just my opinion, but I believe mediocrity will eventually lead to failure, and showcasing mediocrity will, in the long run, hurt your cause in helping churches communicate better.
As someone who has participated extensively in the lab, I am merely trying to help you, and those involved with CMS who rarely participate in the lab, by giving some feedback on how I think you can improve. That is all, after all what do I know all I do is make silly pictures.
Yes, I am a design snob. I’m not a whiner.
Josh Lee
December 10, 2008
Let me be the first to say, “Thanks CMS for all the hard work and labor it takes to maintain this community.” I believe you guys are trying your best and I am thankful for that.
Sean does however make a good point that mediocrity can really hurt the over all outcome of something, and given that you guys have set this place up as a place to help churches “stop sucking” I think it begs more of a looksee than just spitting back at him Kevin. You guys were on the forefront of this movement in church marketing and I would hate to see what God has done through you get muddled because you are willing to at least listen to dissenting voices.
A good friend of mine said this, “Good is the enemy of Great”. I feel that what sean was saying was that if you continue to showcase poor work, it inevitably hinders progress in churches that are not concerned with putting out the best product they can.
You guys are the roof on this thing and if you aren’t willing to grow yourselves, the community that you have been able to establish will not grow either.
kissesandrainbows
josh
Chad maag
December 10, 2008
Last Year General Motors and Toyota produced the same amount of vehicles globally, just over 9 million vehicles. In that year GM posted a near $39 billion loss, whereas Toyota posted a near $12 billion gain.
What does that have to do with Church Marketing? Mediocrity and the predilection of propping up mediocrity will lead to failure. Always. If we continue to lower the target and not recognize the success stories in church marketing, church leaders will begin to lose the understanding of why good marketing is so important.
But hey, maybe this is a good thing. By continuing to roll out less than stellar peer-reviewed pieces, perhaps church leadership will begin to seek out those of us that have continually raised the bar in our work and ethics, which will do nicely for our bottom lines.
Kevin D. Hendricks
December 10, 2008
You guys are missing the point. Josh’s weekly roundup entries have never been about finding the best of the best in the lab and showcasing amazing work. They’ve been about showcasing the lab in general and encouraging CMS folks to head over to the lab and help fellow communicators improve.
That’s the goal: Help each other get better.
If Josh only showed the best of the best, why would people even need to go to the lab? The excellent work isn’t what needs the help.
I agree with you guys that showcasing excellence is important–but that’s not what this particular effort is about. Maybe that should be another feature, but don’t rag on this one for not accomplishing something it’s not trying to accomplish.
seanPdesign
December 11, 2008
I don’t think anyone was ragging dude, just offering some constructive criticism and ideas on what some might like to see. That’s it.
Alex G
December 11, 2008
SeanP, I certainly appreciate your comment that we should continue to strive for excellence (the purpose of CMS), but I note that of the 4 designs ‘showcased’, you have only made comment on 1 of those-and that being “It’s great”, which doesn’t seem particularly constructive and surely is precisely what you are complaining about.
Perhaps you are being ironic?
Perhaps you could add some constructive criticism to all 4 designs, to help the artists improve their work, and inspire other contributors?
Alex G
December 11, 2008
SeanP,
PS-I did you a disservice, you HAD made a more useful comment stating that you like the handdrawn feel and colours…I totally missed reading that. I apologise. Still, perhaps you could lead by example and comment on the others..
Cheers.
seanPdesign
December 11, 2008
Who am I to comment on work? What gives me the right to critique a design of someone’s? You’re missing the point entirely and judging someone you don’t know from Adam. Which is incredibly rude and arrogant, yet so typical. . .
The POINT IS, that by displaying mediocre work week after week you continually lower the bar of excellence. People do not have a visual standard to aim for or achieve because one has never been set. I’m not hear to speculate why, I speculate entirely too much at the jeopardy of achieving progress. I am here to tell you that when a standard is not set, excellence cannot be attained and Church Marketing will continue to suck. Whether its in peer review, or else where, a standard needs to be set, the work in the lab is progressively getting worse as a whole, which I believe is the opposite goal of what those that lead this group desire. I’m not saying that the designs previewed are terrible, they aren’t they have potential, but I can’t sit there and babysit every designer, after a while they have to start self evaluating and striving to be better than what was shown. How do we know what to strive for? setting standards. Its that simple.
I don’t comment that much anyone designs in the lab for a few reasons. 1. I don’t have that much time anymore. I work full time, freelance, train MMA, and I am going to school. 2. Critiquing isn’t something I take lightly, it takes a lot of creative energy and I would be doing a disservice to someone if I did not give them at least 100% of my energy critiquing them. If you don’t have something nice, or constructive to say, shut up, thats what I always say. Just pointing to the negative with out giving creative ideas is just lazy, rude, and disrespectful to the artist, and art in general. However giving insight and creative feedback is draining, and time consuming. There is only so much of me that can go around, and those that pay for that time, get more of it.
Maybe we can see some sort of standards visibly in the future since peer review is something entirely different in intention, which again I was not aware of.